Each year, Congress considers rolling back the federal government's open …

The federal government, and thus US taxpayers, provide more money for scientific research than any other single entity. In order to provide access to these paper to scientists and the public alike, the National Institutes of Health adopted a policy in which research it funded would be made open access one year after its publication in journals, even those that are normally subscription only. Many publishers were not amused, and have pushed Congress to reverse the policy. So far, those efforts have failed, but that hasn't stopped this year's Congress from trying again.

This year's version, entitled the Research Works Act, is remarkably simplified compared to previous versions. Its two clauses would require that everyone involved in the paper—all authors, the institutions they worked at, and, most significantly, the publisher—agree before a work can be made open access by the NIH or other federal agencies. As some journals have supported the policy, this would create chaos, because it would be impossible to tell which works would be made open access without a list of every publisher's policy.

This time, however, the attempt seems to have drawn more attention from both the mainstream press and scientific community; one scientist has even looked into the campaign donations given to one of the bill's supporters. Given that past bills never got very far, the additional resistance will probably be enough to keep this year's from passing.

Ars Science Video >

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

A celebration of Cassini

Nearly 20 years ago, the Cassini-Huygens mission was launched and the spacecraft has spent the last 13 years orbiting Saturn. Cassini burned up in Saturn's atmosphere, and left an amazing legacy.

This quote from one of the linked articles explains more about this subject:

Quote:

The NIH spends over $28 billion in taxpayer money annually to fund research. Researchers write articles about their findings, and their peers review those articles, without compensation from publishers. Without the research, there would be nothing to publish. Largely due to historical accident, publishers manage the peer review process, helping journal editors to badger referees into reviewing articles, generally for no pay. The value of the scientific expertise that goes into refereeing dwarfs that of the office expenses incurred by publishers in managing the process. The referees' salaries are paid by universities and research institutes, not by publishers. Basically, we have a system in which the public pays for the research, the universities pay for the refereeing, the publishers pay for office work to coordinate the refereeing, and also for some useful editing. Then the publishers turn around and sell the results back to the universities and to the public who bore almost all of the costs in the first place.

The people of the United States pay good money to learn about the world. It would be a travesty if Congress decided that the interests of a few publishers were more important than the research investments of the American public, and that's exactly what this bill would do.

The NIH doesn't have to fund researchers that don't make their data public.Publishers don't have to publish from researchers that make their data public.

Researchers could build their own peer-review mechanism; you get one peer review for every article you review, or whatever. Have yearly dues to the US Officiall Peer Reviewal Network (I was trying to make an acronym that involved a cuss word or something, but couldn't come up with one) to fund people and mechanisms to track it.

Even with the first amendment, I still don't understand why citizens tolerate Representatives that accept money from people or groups that aren't in their district let alone the country. IMHO if you're not registered to vote in the area the person is going to represent, you shouldn't be able to make a donation.

The NIH doesn't have to fund researchers that don't make their data public.Publishers don't have to publish from researchers that make their data public.

Researchers could build their own peer-review mechanism; you get one peer review for every article you review, or whatever. Have yearly dues to the US Officiall Peer Reviewal Network (I was trying to make an acronym that involved a cuss word or something, but couldn't come up with one) to fund people and mechanisms to track it.

Even with the first amendment, I still don't understand why citizens tolerate Representatives that accept money from people or groups that aren't in their district let alone the country. IMHO if you're not registered to vote in the area the person is going to represent, you shouldn't be able to make a donation.

It's for the same reason(s) that citizens tolerate less than satisfactory government officials at all: failure to vote, apathy, disinformation, voting for the wrong reason, and on, and on. I've known lots of folks who'll vote for one goon just to keep the other "party" out of office (even if the other "party" sports a better candidate). I've known folks who refuse to vote for non-party candidates for fear their votes will assure the wrong goon will get elected. May we not say, voters deserve what they get? < / rant >

It seems to me that blocking open access to scientific documents is somehow analogous to SOPA/PIPA. Am I missing something in so thinking?

While I don't agree with stuff like SOPA, at least the sponsors have some rationale for it: deter copyright infringement. What is the publishers' rationale for this? I can't think of anything more than "protect our bottom line" and I'd hope even the worst politicians would ask for something better than that.

Read about this yesterday, but the reporting was seriously lacking in very important bits of context: has this been tried before? How likely is it to pass? What provoked this attempt? The links to analysis that others have done is also very much appreciated.

Thank god for Ars. I really appreciate the integrity and research that you put into even short pieces like this one.

While I don't agree with stuff like SOPA, at least the sponsors have some rationale for it: deter copyright infringement. What is the publishers' rationale for this? I can't think of anything more than "protect our bottom line" and I'd hope even the worst politicians would ask for something better than that.

Does anyone buy articles individually? I can't imagine a "free after a year" is going to stop Universities from subscribing since researchers kind of need access to recent work. Would you really lose that many $35 one-time subscription fees? Maybe the mainstream press buys these articles or something when some kind of health-related article gets big and the publishers make a killing.

Are you implying that the major media conglomerates have an agenda other than "protect our bottom line"?

No, businesses are out to make money, and that's fine. Their profit is based on existing law that is being broken, and they're attempting to pass further laws to make enforcement of already illegal activity easier. Yes, there are other effects beyond that which makes it a bad idea, but that's their rationale. That's how you convince the public to support the idea. Make promotional videos of "they're stealing our stuff, killing our jobs" etc.

What I'm missing is that similar angle for laws like this. I don't think you can have a proper debate about the merits of an issue unless you can play a little devil's advocate and make an attempt at understanding the other side. I'm assuming that "protect our bottom line" isn't the only argument, and I'm just trying to figure out what it is, or failing that, what it could be. Any suggestions?

How is this even an issue? Surely the publishers know from the start whether a given paper they're considering for publication received public funding? In that case the answer is obvious (to me): publish and relinquish your rights after one year, or don't publish if you can't live with that.

The real issue must be different. It's now so easy to "publish" electronically that even well-established, renowned publishers must be in panic that some new copyleft-friendly movement could come up to publish scientific papers mostly for free in a reputable Internet site. I'm willing to bet one of the reasons this hasn't happened sooner is the stigma of publishing in a non-established forum, especially an online one. Give it a few years and that's bound to change.

PNAS is widely read by researchers, particularly those involved in basic sciences, around the world. PNAS Online receives over 21 million hits per month.[13] The journal is notable for its policy of making research articles freely available online to everyone 6 months after publication (delayed open access), or immediately if authors have chosen the "open access" option (hybrid open access). Immediately free online access (without the 6-month delay) is available to 139 developing countries and for some categories of papers such as colloquia. Abstracts, tables of contents, and online supporting information are free. Anyone can sign up to receive free tables of contents by email.[14]

Because PNAS is self-sustaining and receives no direct funding from the government or the National Academy of Sciences, the journal charges authors publication fees and subscription fees to offset the cost of the editorial and publication process.

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal's 2010 impact factor is 9.771.[15] PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal with 1,338,191 citations from 1994–2004 (the Journal of Biological Chemistry is the most cited journal over this period with 1,740,902 citations in total)

It's pretty telling that whenever I see a news story that begins with "Congress considers X", I always brace for the stupid and/or BS. It's never "Congress considers actually reading the bills" or "Congress considers not selling out the public today (or at least for an hour or two.)"

I guess they figure everyone hates them anyways, might as well do what-the-fuck-ever. Right?

Yeah but, it's not 'do what-the-fuck-ever'. It's do what the Corporate Oligarchy dictates to them via lobbying and lots of cash.

It's the same old story of Corporations/Money = SUPER CITIZENS who veto the will of We The Actual People. They infest the USA with self-destructive atrocities such as this BS. These are the people who tanked our economy then asked for bailouts. These are the people who are too stupid to solve the mortgage catastrophe to anyone's advantage, particularly their own. I consider it the equivalent of handing over the reigns of power to a gang of village idiots, who in turn pull the puppet strings of our brain dead, blowhard politicians.

Tragically, it appears that a new version of this bill has been introduced... called the Research Works Act. It's a pretty short bill, but here's the key part:

Quote:

No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that--

(1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or

(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work.

Note the use of "private-sector research work." There's a definition for that:

Quote:

PRIVATE-SECTOR RESEARCH WORK- The term 'private-sector research work' means an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the United States Government (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code), describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a Federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing. Such term does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research.

This is tragically bad drafting in that depending on how you interpret the commas, it almost certainly means that the NIH requirements and anything similar would be barred. That is, it appears to define federally funded research as "private sector research work," if it's going to be published by a private journal. The Association of American Publishers sure was quick to celebrate the bill, making it clear that it was exactly what they wanted: a ban on forcing works they publish into open access models. Of course, the language is purposely vague so that if you misread it, you might think it doesn't include government-funded works. That's not true. It simply doesn't include government produced works, which are public domain by definition and couldn't be thus limited anyway.

Furthermore, the bill appears to create a new copyright-like "right" for publishers outside of copyright itself. That is, it grants the final say in permission to the publisher, rather than the copyright holder. So, even in a case where an author retains the copyright, or retains distribution rights, this bill could potentially grant the publisher extra rights out of thin air.

Pretty shameless. "What's yours is ours. Even though you made it, you did the work, you paid for it, we got it for free and maybe even we already charged you for it, it's still ours". The **AA could take lessons from these "science journals" guys.

@Bernardo Verda says: "Pretty shameless. What's yours is ours. Even though you made it, you did the work, you paid for it, we got it for free and maybe even we already charged you for it, it's still ours".

Where have I heard that philosophy before? Oh yeah! Commie China, our big heroes of the age who own a massive chunk of our national debt and who rent out their citizens for cheap to make our cheap Walmart junk.

I have to wonder, considering the consistent attacks on the US Constitution from the Congress and executive branch, whether Red China doesn't already own us and are gradually imposing their ruinous '1984' version of reality upon us. Where is my country going? And what is that loud flushing sound?

No wonder we only have one single tech company that's still innovative: Apple. Socialism is infamous for destroying personal incentive and feeding the elite power structure.

Seriously: It's time for a revolution to free ourselves from the Corporate Oligarchy and other power maniacal blithering idiots who come up with these atrocities.

The real issue must be different. It's now so easy to "publish" electronically that even well-established, renowned publishers must be in panic that some new copyleft-friendly movement could come up to publish scientific papers mostly for free in a reputable Internet site. I'm willing to bet one of the reasons this hasn't happened sooner is the stigma of publishing in a non-established forum, especially an online one. Give it a few years and that's bound to change.

It turns out that publishing to the standards scientists are used to isn't trivial. There *are* well-regarded open access publishers already (the best known in the biological sciences being PLoS). Despite having all the advantages of internet publishing, and having received startup funds from foundations, PLoS still charges considerable publication fees. These are fees the author has to pay directly, so there is still a cost advantage to going with a traditional publisher.

But it's true that reputation is probably still the most important factor favoring the use of traditional publishers, and I agree the difference will fade with time.

Nah. Religion usually has peer review, but by a body of self-designated interpreters of the divine revelations. Like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which used to have a more eerie name - hint: nobody expected it

The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699): "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that -- (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."

Translation and Comments:

"If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes "private research" once a publisher "adds value" to it by managing the peer review."

[Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return].

"Since that public research has thereby been transformed into "private research," and the publisher's property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access."

[Comment: The author's sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]"

H.R. 3699 misunderstands the secondary, service role that peer-reviewed research journal publishing plays in US research and development and its (public) funding.

It is a huge miscalculation to weigh the potential gains or losses from providing or not providing open access to publicly funded research in terms of gains or losses to the publishing industry: Lost or delayed research progress mean losses to the growth and productivity of both basic research and the vast R&D industry in all fields, and hence losses to the US economy as a whole.

What needs to be done about public access to peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research?

The minimum policy is for all US federal funders to mandate (require), as a condition for receiving public funding for research, that: (i) the fundee’s revised, accepted refereed final draft of (ii) all refereed journal articles resulting from the funded research must be (iii) deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication (iv) in the fundee'’s institutional repository, with (v) access to the deposit made free for all (OA) immediately (no OA embargo) wherever possible (over 60% of journals already endorse immediate gratis OA self-archiving), and at the latest after a 6-month embargo on OA.

As a former System's Librarian at a college I would say the whole publisher system is broken and information is seriously held behind a digital wall. The information I had with JSTOR and EBSCO was amazing, but to much of it was held back for financial benefit of the publisher and not the professor even when it is funded with public money.

Who pays the author's salary when he/she does his/her research If a author is an employee of a state institution or a school funded by the government and if they conduct research and work writing using said institutions resources all the research and information should be shared openly.

I can't even get my hands on 1/10th the research now that I am not employed by the college or a student.

"If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes "private research" once a publisher "adds value" to it by managing the peer review."

Thank you, that was the "rationale" I was looking for and just couldn't see myself. By coordinating peer review, the publisher considers the research some kind of derivative work and then takes ownership/control of it and isn't making new laws, but just trying to exercise their already existing rights. Bunk, of course, but I like to see the attempted justification. Thanks.